The term "feeler logic" has been tossed around a bit, and it seems useful to continue to address what it could mean.
A simple metaphor that might be useful in distilling the difference between "thinking" and "feeling" logic is the question: If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?"
If you remove the element of perception, and measure the answer by recording the vibrations and observing the tree before and after its fall, you can conclude with reason that it did emit sound vibrations. I am suggesting that the "thinker" definition leans towards emphasizing physical phenomena over experiential perception (and this would overlap to include the physical phenonmenon of the physiology of hearing as well.)
The "feeler" conception of the question would focus on sound as an experience of perception would conclude it made a sound if that sound was heard. This line of reasoning has fuzzier boundaries. The concept of "sound" is less distinct. It is not a measured amount of vibrations, but an experience of hearing. Each individual will hear the sound somewhat differently based on their ability to hear and their emotional/psychological associations with that particular sound.
"Feeler logic" deals more with values and internal perceptions of the outside world. These resist precise measurement, the boundaries are fuzzy and often indistinct. Because of this, it requires a different approach than hard definitions and absolute conclusions. It would seem that feeler logic would then match the indistinct nature of its content with conclusions that contain softer boundaries.
For example, one cannot actually go inside someone else's head and view their experience, but instead learn how to infer hidden truths through verbal and non-verbal cues. Knowing that people are invested in their own experience and tend to project this to the outside world, you can learn much about the internal world. When interacting with people, there is a tendency for others to subconsciously attempt to recreate their own angers and fears in other people. You can learn about their inner world by how they tend to make you feel - of course this reasoning is indistinct and only suggests certain things and cannot conclude absolutely. If someone makes other feel stupid in debate, it suggests that this person is familiar with that feeling and overcompensates by demonstrating its opposite in self while instilling the negative familiar feeling in others. If an individual makes you feel humiliated, this suggests the person has an image focus and fears humiliation in their own experience. If the person makes you feel judged, they might struggle with guilt or feeling judged themselves. By stepping back and taking in all the nuance of the exchange, allowing self to feel both their own emotion and that of the other person, feeler logic can process truths about the outside world that are indistinct, resist measurement and definition, but are relevant, real, and make a deep impact.
Applying this type of indistinct reasoning to science will have poor results, just like applying hard logic to the fuzzy boundaries, ironies, and illogic of perception and experience will achieve inconsistent and false conclusions. It's about using the most efficient reasoning tool for a particular content of information.